4.4 Article

Genetic and Pathogenic Variability of Indian Strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris Causing Black Rot Disease in Crucifers

期刊

CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 6, 页码 551-560

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00284-011-0024-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Division of Plant Pathology, IARI, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris (Pammel) Dowson (Xcc) causing black rot of crucifers is a serious disease in India and causes >50% crop losses in favorable environmental conditions. Pathogenic variability of Xcc, X. oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo), and X. axonopodis pv. citri (Xac) were tested on 19 cultivars of cruciferae including seven Brassica spp. viz., B. campestris, B. carinata, B. juncea, B. napus, B. nigra, B. oleracea and B. rapa, and Raphanus sativus for two consecutive years viz., 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 under field conditions at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Xcc (22 strains) and other species of Xanthomonas (2 strains), they formed three distinct groups of pathogenic variability i.e., Group 1, 2, and 3 under 50% minimum similarity coefficient. All strains of Xcc clustered under Group1 except Xcc-C20. The strains of Xcc further clustered in 6 subgroups viz., A, B, C, D, E, and F based on diseases reaction on host. Genetic variability of 22 strains of Xcc was studied by using Rep-PCR (REP-, BOX-and ERIC-PCR) and 10 strains for hrp (hypersensitive reaction and pathogenecity) gene sequence analysis. Xcc strains comprised in cluster 1, Xac under cluster 2, while Xoo formed separate cluster 3 based on >50% similarity coefficient. Cluster 1 was further divided into 8 subgroups viz., A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H at 75% similarity coefficient. The hrpF gene sequence analysis also showed distinctness of Xcc strains from other Xanthomonads. In this study, genetic and pathogenic variability in Indian strains of Xcc were established, which will be of immense use in the development of resistant genotypes against this bacterial pathogen.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据